Probate of the late William Giberson.

Lela Dalton v Spring Giverson

Facts:
Lela Dalton filed for the legalization of the documents which claims to be the holographic will of
William Giberson, executed in California. The decedent was a citizen of Illinois, US and a
resident of Cebu who died in UST, Manila. Spring Giberson, a legitimate son of the decedent
opposed with the contention that before a will executed in a foreign country maybe probated
here, it must be shown that it has been previously probated in said foreign country. The
opposition, in support of his theory, he argues that Article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure
has been repealed by Rule 78, under Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution. That Article 635
of the Code of Civil Procedure reads as follows:A will executed outside of the Philippines, which
may be authenticated and legalized under the laws of the state or country where it was granted,
may be authenticated, legalized and registered in the Philippine Islands, and will have the same
efficacy quesi has been granted in accordance with the laws of these Islands.
Issue: WON the will of the decedent written in a foreign country does not have legal effect in the
Philippines on the ground that it was not probated in that said country.
Ruling:A person may dispose of their property for after his death by will. The granting of a legal
act testamentoes that can be done in the Philippines or abroad, if granted in a foreign country,
must be in accordance with the laws of that country, it is a rule universally adopted.The alien
may have to after his death his property in the Philippines by will and not forced to give it in the
Philippines can do in their own country or another, but according to the laws of the country
granting it. Article 635 of the Code of Civil Procedure, respecting the freedom of the testator to
give his will anywhere, has the will to be legalized in a foreign country in accordance with
the laws of that country can legalizsarse also in the Philippines. That provision is substantive, it
creates the rights of beneficiaries of the will: they are said to legalize wills otorgadosfuera
Philippine Islands if they can be legalized in the country in which they were granted, giving them
cause of action for compliance pedirjudicialmente the last testator's will whatever the place of
execution. Sinesa provision would be truncated to test the power.And Article 637 reads: "The
wills authenticated and legalized in the United States, or any state or territory thereof, or a state
or paisextranjero, in accordance with the laws of that state, territory or country, may be legalized
yarchivados registered in the Court of First Instance of the testator hath provinciaen property, or
property efectados by such wills. " This articulono is in conflict with Article 635, in fact, more
than its corollary noes. If a will made in a foreign country can be legalized in accordance with
the laws of that country may also legalized in the Philippines, with more reason legalizadosen
wills and foreign countries in accordance with the laws of those countries may also legalized in
the Philippines.Article 1 of Rule 78 is nothing more than a transplantation of Article 637 of the
Code of Civil Procedure. Reproduce the two provisions:RULE 78 - SECTION 1. WillsPhilippines
may be outside PROVED allowed here. - Wills PROVED and allowed in a foreign country,
According To The Laws of Such country, may be allowed, filed, and Recorded by theCourt of
First Instance proper in the Philippines.SEC. 637. Wills islands may be outside PROVED
allowed here. - Wills PROVED and allowed in the United States, or State or Territory Any
thereof, or in a foreign state or country, According To The Laws of Such State, Territory, or
country, may be allowed,filed, and Recorded in the Court of First Instance of the province in
Which the testator has real or estate staff on Which Such will may Operate.The underlined
words in the second arrangement is not shown in the first. Article 1 of Rule 78 can not prevent a
legalized in the Philippines will made in a foreign country, if it can be legalized in accordance
nwith the laws of that country, not prevnot previously required to be legalized in that country. It is
untenable, therefore, the theory of the opponent.
Revoking the order appealed from with costs against the respondent.